Browse categories:

Hide popular topics:

/r/technology is a place to share and discuss the latest developments, happenings and curiosities in the world of technology; a broad spectrum of conversation as to the innovations, aspirations, applications and machinations that define our age and shape our future.

Rules:

1. Submissions

Guidelines:

Submissions must be primarily news and developments relating to technology

Submissions relating to business and politics must be sufficiently within the context of technology in that they either view the events from a technological standpoint or analyse the repercussions in the technological world.

Please do not submit the following:

i) Submissions violating the guidelines.

ii) Images, audio or videos: Articles with supporting image and video content are allowed; if the text is only there to explain the media, then it is not suitable. A good rule of thumb is to look at the URL; if it's a video hosting site, or mentions video in the URL, it's not suitable.

iii) Requests for tech support, questions or help: submit to /r/techsupport, /r/AskTechnology, another relevant community or our weekly Support Saturday threads.

iv) Petitions, Surveys or Crowdfunding - submissions of this nature will be removed.

vii) Mobile versions of sites, url shorteners: please directly submit the desktop version of a webpage in all cases.

2. Behaviour

Remember the human You are advised to abide by reddiquette; it will be enforced when user behavior is no longer deemed to be suitable for a technology forum. Remember; personal attacks, abusive language, trolling or bigotry in any form are therefore not allowed and will be removed.

3. Titles

Submissions must use either the articles title, or a suitable quote, either of which must:

Removed threads will either be given a removal reason flair or comment response; please message the moderators if this did not occur.

All legitimate, answerable modmail inquiries or suggestions will be answered to the best of our abilities within a reasonable period of time.

Rule violators will be warned. Repeat offenders will be temporarily banned from one to seven days. An unheeded final warning will result in a permanent ban. This may be reversed upon evidence of suitable behavior.

To all the nay and yea sayers of Linux, here's the real reason supercomputers use it: Supercomputers are highly specialized machines that run highly specialized programs. Highly specialized programs and machines require highly specialized utilities (or at least are more demanding of the utilities). Frequently, source code modifications must be made to work around quirks in software packages. Having the source code of every part of your computer can help track down why the ODE solving package is segfaulting your code. Is it a problem with PETSc? Is it the interaction between PETSc and the kernel? With Windows, it's much harder to track down these problems.

Here's a real-world example: Louisiana State University has a computing center (as most large universities do). When Hurricane Katrina was bearing down on us, they called the manufacturer of one of their larger clusters and asked for the documentation on how to shut it down. Unfortunately, there was none. At all. Clusters like that are meant to be powered up and run for 10 years then shut down permanently. So, a bunch of CS students dug through the code and determined the proper shutdown sequence, saving the day.

Linux does not make your computer faster or better. But it does give you more control of, well, everything about it, which some people want and/or need.

Here's a real-world example: Louisiana State University has a computing center (as most large universities do). When Hurricane Katrina was bearing down on us, they called the manufacturer of one of their larger clusters and asked for the documentation on how to shut it down. Unfortunately, there was none. At all. Clusters like that are meant to be powered up and run for 10 years then shut down permanently. So, a bunch of CS students dug through the code and determined the proper shutdown sequence, saving the day.

...What? No. If they had a meeting about shutting the machine down properly, that's because these machines have huge dependency trees. You don't just say "shutdown -h now," you kick off users, restrict logins, kill jobs, shut down the scheduler, shut down the queue, check for stray processes, unmount your parallel FS, shut down the parallel fs, shut down the nodes of the parallel fs, shut down compute nodes, shut down login nodes, shut down the master, start bringing down nfs storage, etc. It's done several times a year (once a month at many of the largest centers). If it's not documented, that's not the vendor's fault, that's the sysadmin's fault. This exists with windows, aix, linux, hpux, whatever.

Want to see a nightmare meeting? Sit your HPC, IT, Network and Operations staff down and document how to do an orderly shut down of the entire machine room in the case of high-heat.

There are many reasons to use linux in HPC. What you said right here is simply not one of them.

Also, no machine classified as a supercomputer ever has a 10 year lifespan. Support costs jack way sooner than that.

Besides having access to the source code and the ability to customize it for your own application and hardware...

Linux is cheaper when your talking about licensing clusters, for ]Window Server the licensing for per node would probably end up stupid expensive if you were to talk to Microsoft. Then to support it you would be talking about even stupider amounts of money.

Actually Linux does make the computer faster. Its context switch time is incredible and it scales better for multicore than any other OS out there. That is why Linux is on super computers. Its performance profile is excellent for them.

It isn't just that they needed to make modifications (something which can be done for super computers even with proprietary systems). There are solid technical reasons why Linux is excellent for this.

Of course you could argue this is chicken and egg. Linux definitely has all these characteristics in part because it became a favourite in the high performance market.

If you ask for it and sign the NDA you can get the source to the NT kernel. The Windows debugging tools are the best history has ever seen. The Linux debugging tools in comparison are 1960's tech.

If the computer was running Windows you would click on the 'Shutdown' button and it would... shutdown. Instead of having an open-ended daemon architecture in which the programmer could do whatever fuck-all he wanted, under NT you have written a service which has a clear start-up and shutdown process.

Linux arguably does make your computer run faster for these applications; the kernel-to-user land jump takes longer under Windows. If you were creating such an application under Window you would probably end-up writing a kernel-mode service (i.e. driver) - that's what IIS does.

After working for numerous proprietary tech companies I cam here to say as much. This isn't some sort of fan-boy flame war proof/fact, using it as such just indicates your general lack of understanding about the "computing field." If you have a specialized purpose for a machine and need to be able to program for that purpose from the ground up without OS interference, then it's the way to go, unfortunately that also leaves a lot of room open for error on your part and all types of other issues that can be a real pain in the ass that never cease. If you don't need that level of specialized OS, then I'd say you're no better off with Linux and maybe a little worse off, as it WILL force you to take your attention away from other areas to fix it and get it operational on a regular basis.

of course the supercomputers use Linux.. its all programmable, you can literally do anything with it.. whereas PC and Mac have limits and parameters, that make things easier, but not if youre trying to do a shit ton of physics calculations for your model

You were, I was saying that's not a fair assessment of AIX. AIX is a rock solid OS made for massive amounts of memory and processor. The only time you see it on IBM Power machines is when license costs are a concern. Hell, the OS even has linux affinity.

Does that imply causality? If i switch to linux, will it make my computer better? Easier of use? Compatible with other systems, programs, apps? Will it make my life better? What is your point here?

It's like saying 100% of space shutles run on rocket fuel. Do i need rocket fuel in my car now?

While Linux offer a lot of customization, the general population does not seek this benefit and while performance is important, other variable like ease of use is also important here. Also, having a slight increase of performance, when you have basic need like email and facebook, usually does not justify learning a whole new operating system unless you're a hobbyist.

Walmart tried selling computer with linux cheaper (no license fee) and still, it did not succeed. Playing inside the computer, operating system is not my hobby. I want a computer that work under an operating system that is tried and true and for this, i am willing to pay the license.

I do not think this article tries to convince anybody to use Linux. Just states the fact that 94% of super computer use it. You do not need to be stressed that people will start using it. I use it daily for last 5 years and I see some huge advantages over Windows or Mac. If you don't stay with your current option. Nobody force you.

This is stupid. If 94% of supercomputers use Linux, then yes, it's better, for that particular application. You're jumping to conclusions if you think OP is trying to convince the general user that Linux is superior in all aspects.

Let's not get into a flame war. My mother have a laptop with windows , desktop with Ubuntu and tablet with Android. Her preferences are Android > Ubuntu >windows. And she is 67. Does it mean that everybody will have similar preferences ? Hell no.

And about ease of use . Most people struggle with computers. No matter what OS. When my neighbors in my old place discovered I am IT person the bombarded me with lots of trivial problem (on windows). Sometimes they have problem with using like-ICQ application.

It's /r/technology. Contrary to what you and some other people seem to think, it isn't just a place to beat your chest about your favourite platform and it isn't just advertising. The point is to share interesting tech news or information. This does that. You are the person taking it the wrong way.

It's like saying 100% of space shutles run on rocket fuel. Do i need rocket fuel in my car now?

Nobody is telling you to use Linux, where are you getting that from?

While Linux offer a lot of customization, the general population does not seek this benefit

Really? Since one of the first things many people do to a new phone, item, PC, is customise it.

like ease of use is also important here

Have you used Linux since 2000? It's very easy to use now. Try Ubuntu.

Also, having a slight increase of performance

Nobody said you get performance increases.

when you have basic need like email and facebook

You mention compatibility as a negative and then mention people who only need web services? Web Browsers are the one thing Linux absolutely has enough of. Chrome, Firefox and Opera are all excellent on Linux.

usually does not justify learning a whole new operating system unless you're a hobbyist.

You don't need to learn anything to use most Linux OSes anymore. Ubuntu looks and feels very similar to some hybrid between Mac and Windows. It's very easy to use. Firefox is a default button. Just click it and you have Firefox. The login screen is also very similar to a windows one and is very easy to use.

Walmart tried selling computer with linux cheaper (no license fee) and still, it did not succeed.

That doesn't mean anything.

Playing inside the computer, operating system is not my hobby.

Then don't do that. You don't need to in Linux. What year do you live in? Since you sound like you're talking about 2005. If you download and run Ubuntu from a memory stick now, you'll be shocked at how easy it is. And yes, you can just boot it from a USB and read the web. You don't even need to install it and it can do all of the basic web browsing and facebooking you'll need. How easy is it? Extremely.

Installing Ubuntu is just as easy. The same USB can install it.

I want a computer that work under an operating system that is tried and true and for this

Ubuntu is "tried and true" as well.

i am willing to pay the license.

What does that have to do with anything? A license isn't proof of quality at all.

Now, look carefully; I am trying to sell Linux. The original article is not. Learn the difference.

It's evident you were offensed by my comment. While i disagree with most point you're making or you choose to stick on details, Linux is growing in its niche as other systems are growing and the diversity of choice is very healthy for everyone. I would hope to see Linux be more than a niche system in the future but it is not the case at the moment.

It is very presumptuous of you to think that because i chose to not use Linux and argue that people may value other variable than performance makes me an ignorant, idiot (or more precisely idioticaly sticking to ignorance) and have an inflated perception of my knowledge (thanks for the reference, very interesting).

It is very interesting that you built a rebutal on single points out of context with weak arguments and still fail to grasp the fact that for my needs, switching to a new OS is not worth it based on the costs (learning a new OS, etc.) and benefits (slightly better performance, no license fee).

It is as if you purposely were searching for any way to contradict my original post because (quite evident here), are not open to other idea (neither respect them) and felt offended to the point where you had to attack me personally (idiot, ignorant, full of himself) thus failing to have a proper discussion.

To thank you for the interesting reference you provided me with (truly), please find this representation of the situation which i suggest you reflect on.

It is very presumptuous of you to think that because i chose to not use Linux and argue that people may value other variable than performance makes me an ignorant, idiot (or more precisely idioticaly sticking to ignorance) and have an inflated perception of my knowledge (thanks for the reference, very interesting).

At no point did I argue for performance. Please learn to read. I'll point it out for you:

You: Also, having a slight increase of performance

Me: Nobody said you get performance increases.

You're the one who has based their entire argument on performance increases, constantly claiming how they don't matter. I don't give a shit about performance, it's too complex of an issue to be able to judge reasonably on products as mature and widely adopted as Windows, OSX and Linux.

It is very interesting that you built a rebutal on single points out of context with weak arguments and still fail to grasp the fact that for my needs, switching to a new OS is not worth it based on the costs (learning a new OS, etc.) and benefits (slightly better performance, no license fee).

At no point did I tell you switch OS. Please learn to read.

You: It's like saying 100% of space shutles run on rocket fuel. Do i need rocket fuel in my car now?

Me: Nobody is telling you to use Linux, where are you getting that from?

You're the one who is imagining an argument where I'm trying to make you use Linux.

It is as if you purposely were searching for any way to contradict my original post because (quite evident here)

Because you were entirely wrong.

are not open to other idea (neither respect them)

At no point did I say anything negative about Windows or OSX. I use Windows regularly.

and felt offended to the point where you had to attack me personally (idiot, ignorant, full of himself) thus failing to have a proper discussion.

At no point did I insult you in my first response. It was when you failed to comprehend my points and ignorantly stuck to some out of date notion that Linux is hard to use that I decided you were an idiot.

Also, can you read? Because you were the one who came in here to start shouting about how you shouldn't have to use Linux. I came here to show you why everything you said was wrong. You were being presumptuous, and you're ignorantly sticking to it.

To thank you for the interesting reference you provided me with (truly), please find this representation of the situation which i suggest you reflect on.

You're commenting on Reddit and have the arrogance to post that? Posting a shitty XKCD panel to try to make me seem unreasonable just makes you look pompous and hypocritical considering that you're doing the same.

You don't have any ground to stand on. You're wrong and you don't like it. If you're going to respond to me, go respond to my original response rather than digging yourself a hole by proving that you didn't read a fucking thing that I said. I recommend using quotes since they at least prove you have a frame of reference.

PS. I have no idea what is wrong with your use of English. Perhaps it is your second language, perhaps you just aren't very old, but you do not construct your sentences well. Use less bracketed sections.

Lol i was expecting your answer to be GOLDEN and wow, i am served! Thanks for putting a smile on my face!

I really like the structure of your argument and where it's going!
1. Disagree vigorously
2. Stick on details (aka fail to see the forest)
3. Insult other
4. Correct Grammar (Well not specifically, but you were just about to start doing it, admit it!)

Seriously, read reference 3. Get help.

I've had better discussion with 22yo who just discovered they had a voice and have this inherent feeling that it has to be heard.

nb. Posting a great XKCD comic was not meant to make you look like someone unreasonable. It was pretty evident to everyone at this point of the conversation.

Yeah, at this point I realise that you're just an ignorant asshole who isn't worth my time. You can't hold back from insults and bullshit for more than a single sentence. You also don't provide any arguments. I can't beat an idiot at his own game, you have way too much experience.

Also, learn fucking use English properly. You sound like an uneducated hick. Good day, I hope your idiocy kills you soon.

Well you can't exactly look at these super computers as being "one computer". They consist of multiple "nodes", each with their own spec limitations. For example, the #1 supercomputer on that list has a limit of 32GB of ram per node.

In any case, Windows is not ideal for supercomputers for a large number of reasons, and the RAM limit really isn't even a factor. If for some crazy reason that was a limit in a real-life scenario, they would just partition the nodes differently to work around it.

Just to insert some knowledge, there are shared memory machines that do need an OS that can address the aggregate memory footprint. The architecture isn't in heavy use these days, but SGI/Rackable still make them (the UV line). All this ridiculous masterbatory arguing by BrainSlurper and Strawberrymuffins ignores reality. Most OSs do not simply provide for the architectural limits. As was noted, microsoft limits to 4TB. These limits are put in place because managing more than that has proven to be inefficient thus far for that OS. Further, at least when specifically talking about x86_64, there are logical limits to what a board manufacturer can support (you can only get so far with today's DIMM sizes).

Are you stupid or you don't understand that M$ does not want to license out more then 4tb per install? Same with core/vcore which are artificial. What are you doing discussing technology when you don't understand the basics.

Any 64bit os can address 16exabytes of space. The rest of the limitations are artificial, no one can get 4tb on rack, how do you see this deployment happening? Ms isn't interested in one-off scenarios for supercomputers if they can't charge per core/node.

Security was an afterthought at MS for a long time, I think now though they do make a concerted effort on it. Their problem is bureaucracy is causing them security problems.

For example, the time to patch security holes in web browsers; With Mozilla and Google it is days sometimes hours between an exploit being public and the time until the patch for their respective web browser.
With MS because of the compatibility testing and bureaucracy it can often be weeks or months before a patch appears.

They have been putting some serious security into their internet facing products like server etc. It's just the bureaucracy that is screwing up their security.

Microsoft has changed on the way they think about security. I don't have the link article, but on Kaspersky's latest Top 10 security breaches, Microsoft wasn't on there. This isn't saying they are perfect, just that they are getting better.

This doesn't mean that Linux is superior in general, just that it is superior for supercomputers. Why is this? When you have niche applications where you will be writing all your code custom anyways, you want your OS to do as little as possible so that your code can do what you want it to as efficiently as possible. This is similarly the case for servers.

General computing is fundamentally different from supercomputing and other niche computing.

This post is hilarious. All the article talks about is Linux and supercomputers. If you don't want to use Linux then don't. It's an awesome free OS that is available for download and use. It doesn't have an agenda.

because linux is more secure. people who praise it as a standard OS are kidding themselves. now, if i wanted a machine to guard some secret info like peoples SS numbers? yea linux is fine, but it isn't nearly as user friendly as windows, which is why if you are just playing games, or browsing the internet, there is no reason to use linux.

tl;dr use linux if you need security but windows is still better for most people.

if by 'servers' you mean shared hosting packages, they don't count, yet make up the majority of what people quote as 'server market share'... so it's all BS. of course facebook is linux, they use php (another piece of crap). supposedly they were in partnership with someone else to extend/upgrade php, which never materialized.

android runs linux, but people want it to run mono as well. oops, don't mention microsoft, evil... so, you're left with shit java and c++ abstractions. anyways, android sucks cuz of java specifically, oh again, something that was developed for linux. shit nobody uses java apps any more, it's all dotnet or flash.

as for google, i could seriously care less. they're not even a real company. every attempt of theirs to develop a new programming language has failed, because they think they are Sun; and just like Sun they think they know better and don't want to follow standards, and don't want to contribute to them. they want something they can control.

now just to add salt to the wound: MS will win the pc/console/mobile wars because of dotnet and unified architecture. it is the only development framework that is truly device-platform-independent. meaning: you can code in the language of choice for any device (pc/console/mobile/web/set-top/etc). osx/ios doesn't have an answer to this, and neither does linux. they are at least 10 years behind (remember, dotnet started in 1989 or so, popularized in 1993).

...C? you mean android runs C, not C++? how would i know? i don't program calculators...

or you mean people still use C or C++ when in high performance apps? sure they do, but that number is decreasing exponentially as managed languages are no longer a problem with almost unlimited hardware/resources.

these days hardware is cheaper than labor.

it's not windows.. it's dotnet... it's aa framework with a CLR, meaning it can run on ANY platform as long as a CLI is available (which means both a CIL and CLR are available for that platform).

You know nothing of HPC, that's clear. Hardware is a finite resource, without question. You're coming from the commodity computing. That's fine, but we're talking about HPC here.

it is the only development framework that is truly device-platform-independent.

No, it's not. I'm telling you platforms it's missed (which makes it very much platform dependent). Miguel has himself pointed this out. C is very much platform independent and has enjoyed truly massive adoption. I don't know if you're foolishly trying to belittle it or something, but this is reality. That number is not decreasing exponentially and the dotnet uptake in HPC is simply non-existent. Now, I'm not arguing that C is anything more than "truly device-platform independent."

Now, yes, in fantasy theory world, dotnet should be utterly cross-platform, but you need an implementation in reality for that to actually be the case.

I really don't understand why you care, however. You come off as one of those sales guys that comes in every once in a while for a product introduction that clearly has no idea what sector they're in. Like the NFS accelerator guys who try to get me to throw their product in front of a parallel FS. Do you even understand what the problem you're trying to solve is? Who the competition is? Who already invented this wheel, etc.

how is C platform independent? roflmfao. where are the common graphics libraries, etc etc etc... oh wait, they don't fucking exist unless you go looking for your own...

that isn't independent, so whatever.

i never said dotnet was used in HPC... in fact, i said the opposite. WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU SMOKING?

C is good for doing repetitive tasks, quickly and efficiently. however, apart from niches like HPC, most tasks are NOT repetitive, and turnarounds/dev time are now months instead of years. you simply CANNOT use C for that.

sure, you wanna make a calendar app for a tablet (calculator if you ask me), sure.. go ahead.. for any sort of REAL business application, you're going to be using a managed language/framework.

the simple argument here was that 94% of top 500 supercomputers run linux. and that is exactly what i argued. that linux works fine for this application, and NOTHING else, apart from mobiles/network devices due to their low processing capabilities.

however, hardware as stated is now cheaper than labor. except if all you need to do is run a single equation 5 billion times (aka a calculator, therefore HPC should stand for high performance calculator), then labor is cheaper than hardware...

i hope that makes it clear.

in fact, even torvalds is dissatisfied with the state of linux and prefers to work on the kernel itself, calling the kernel the OS, which is all linux is really good for in HPC, a lightweight efficient kernel.

btw, i couldn't help but notice your name includes 'gimp'... so your opinion is biased i believe. linux is a calculator. plain and simple, whether it's for HPC or for calculating network routes (and iptables really isn't cpu efficient), or whatever... calculator...

Then why are you even here? HPC is what the adults here are talking about. Go take your GUI and play in the corner. I'm sure and end user cares a whole lot what you have to say. Quick! Someone needs a spreadsheet application, go code one up with your wizz-bang framework! Just leave the science to us.

But really, that's what you're going on about? Who the fuck cares? We all got over this stupid fucking pissing war a decade ago and fucking got back to work. You can keep going on about linux being for cell phones to a crowd talking about the top500 list (really, your PCs just impress us all so very much).

Also, to help you shore up this ridiculous argument you're having with yourself, get the difference between an OS, architecture and framework down. You're arguing a framework is better than an OS, a patently silly argument.

Traditionally, a framework is not part of an OS, but it's okay. I understand you're a bit slow. But no, to clarify, you did not get that right.

Are you almost done? Your pissing war is boring and you're boring. I don't have the inkling of a desire to care about what OS or framework you'd like to champion. I'd be willing to bet not a single other person in this thread gives the first shit about what you prefer.